Can we change the gender of a sacrament?

[She]

If you don't trust the Scriptures anywhere else, how do you know that these words were really the words of Christ?

It is possible to trust the Scriptures without crediting them as God's word. It is also possible to believe that they were men's words, inspired by God. It is therefore possible to believe that the words which Jesus spoke were spoken by Jesus. Faith is required to believe that Jesus spoke with authority and that he was the Son of God.

 

[Colabomb]

How can God inspire something that is fundementally wrong?

 

[kiwimac]

By using human beings as the medium of transmission. God inspired the scriptures, what God got was the scriptures PLUS whatever the human doing the writing THOUGHT God was saying.

Or are you suggesting that God turned those who inscribed the scriptures into automata to do so?

Kiwimac

 

[Colabomb]

By using human beings as the medium of transmission. God inspired the scriptures, what God got was the scriptures PLUS whatever the human doing the writing THOUGHT God was saying.

Or are you suggesting that God turned those who inscribed the scriptures into automata to do so?

Kiwimac

Not necessarily Autonoma, but I believe he did not let human Sin get in the way of His Inspiration.

The Style and form of the Authors exist, but all doctrine is of God.

 

[Colabomb]

By using human beings as the medium of transmission. God inspired the scriptures, what God got was the scriptures PLUS whatever the human doing the writing THOUGHT God was saying.

Or are you suggesting that God turned those who inscribed the scriptures into automata to do so?

Kiwimac

Also, how do discern the difference between what is of God, and what is of Paul?

 

[Wiffey]

By comparing what Paul said to the words of Christ...and putting emhasis on those areas of agreement.

 

[Colabomb]

By comparing what Paul said to the words of Christ...and putting emhasis on those areas of agreement.

I ask again, how do you know that Christ said the things contained in Scripture?

Remember, the Gospels were not written by Christ, but by the same men that you call sexist racist bigots.

 

[higgs2]

I ask again, how do you know that Christ said the things contained in Scripture?

Remember, the Gospels were not written by Christ, but by the same men that you call sexist racist bigots.

Cola, I did a search on the words sexist, racist, and bigots and the only place they showed up was in *your* post! Have you taken a debate class before? I am not up on all the terms, but I am sure Paladin or someone can tell us the name for taking someone's words, changing them to your own terms, and then debating those terms rather than the original statements. Fallacy of something I imagine.

 

[ContraMundum]

Cola, I did a search on the words sexist, racist, and bigots and the only place they showed up was in *your* post! Have you taken a debate class before? I am not up on all the terms, but I am sure Paladin or someone can tell us the name for taking someone's words, changing them to your own terms, and then debating those terms rather than the original statements. Fallacy of something I imagine.

He correctly recognises that such terms are being implied in the arguments put forward.

You've just used a "tu quoque" form of argument, incidentaly.

 

[Colabomb]

Cola, I did a search on the words sexist, racist, and bigots and the only place they showed up was in *your* post! Have you taken a debate class before? I am not up on all the terms, but I am sure Paladin or someone can tell us the name for taking someone's words, changing them to your own terms, and then debating those terms rather than the original statements. Fallacy of something I imagine.

If I said "Brand X has a lower dose of the effective Ingredient" Would I not essentially be claiming that the drug is a lower dose?

 

[higgs2]

If I said "Brand X has a lower dose of the effective Ingredient" Would I not essentially be claiming that the drug is a lower dose?

If you said that "Brand X is not as good" or "too weak" or "ineffective" then it would be a good analogy.

 

[Colabomb]

If you said that "Brand X is not as good" or "too weak" or "ineffective" then it would be a good analogy.

I put two and two together.

I read posters say "Human Bias is present in the Scriptures", then I hear "Sexism was prevalent in the 1st Century"

What conclusion would you come to?

Add on to that that my doctrine and those of us who follow it are accused of being sexist outright.

 

[higgs2]

I put two and two together.

I read posters say "Human Bias is present in the Scriptures", then I hear "Sexism was prevalent in the 1st Century"

What conclusion would you come to?

Add on to that that my doctrine and those of us who follow it are accused of being sexist outright.

Is this the quote you mean?

I do think the two are different...male only ordination is a product of the cultural issues that shaped the early church. Only men were priests because (at the time) gender roles were rigidly delineated and women were mostly caring for their 12 or so kids.

I don't see sexism mentioned. It seems that your post displays hyperbole and jumping to conclusions about what people really mean with their words.

 

[Colabomb]

Is this the quote you mean?



I don't see sexism mentioned. It seems that your post displays hyperbole and jumping to conclusions about what people really mean with their words.

No not that one

 

[higgs2]

No not that one

Well, did you imagine it?

 

[Colabomb]

This one

Was sexism acceptable in the 1st century? Sure.

This one's a gem

Not at all,

You see here is the problem.

You are quite willing to call those of us who accept Female priests and Bishops, opposed to the scriptures and to the traditions of the church.

Yet in order to bolster your own position you are willing to ignore Jesus and his RESOUNDING silence in this matter.

I call that sexism, prejudice and bigotry.

Kiwimac
http://www.christianforums.com/t2989487-can-women-be-priests-and-bishops.html&page=34

And this one.

If the church discriminates on the basis of gender without an understandable reason why women cannot be priests then it condones discrimination in general. If God really does command that, then God is also condoning arbitrary discrimination. I don't believe that is consistant with what else he has said.
http://www.christianforums.com/t2989487-can-women-be-priests-and-bishops.html&page=36

And finally this one.

The sexism and bigotry in this thread is truly appaling.

http://www.christianforums.com/t2989487-can-women-be-priests-and-bishops.html&page=33

 

[Colabomb]

No.

 

[higgs2]

This one




This one's a gem



And this one.



And finally this one.

Your post accused Wiffey of saying things based on statements by other people, and by extrapolating from one small post by her in a different thread.

 

[Colabomb]

Your post accused Wiffey of saying things based on statements by other people, and by extrapolating from one small post by her in a different thread.

I made no connection other than the fact that they linked our doctrine and sexism.

I freely admit they are different threads and different contexts.

I still pointed out that I am not "hyperbolizing" and that the "S" word is indeed used. I did not imagine it.

 

[Colabomb]

Anyway, this was not about Wiffey to begin with.